Muslim People in Australia (1 Viewer)

[romeot.]

ok, so wat is freedom relly?
the macquarie dictionary states freedom as.......blah blah balh
ill tell u where freedom is, it is the free-ness in our hearts
for freedom is kinda like a hashbrown in a sense that it can be both baked, and fried. the good quality ones are made from good quality potatoes, the catch is the way in which they dice the potato, u see.
to tell apart a good quality hash from a bad is simply looking at the generic pattern of this oily hevean-sent.
"if its brown, gobble it down, if its yella, hang on, put it back in the oven fella"

right you are francis. even though i have never ever met you before in my life at all, ever, i feel like i have and i totally understand your logic. i mean, along the same lines, is not an apple pie meant to be a round slop of pastry with sweetened, liquified apple chunks inside? but freedom is the availability to break the mould of conformity as macdonalds does and make the apple pie an eliptical piece of food all crumbly and such...
in the same way as muslims in australia are still australians, and still muslims, they are free! free to break the mould! free i say! free! just like apple pie...
so people, what we are saying is that if apple pie is not like all other pies, it cannot be discounted as pie, but it is also equally not to be dismissed as the archetype for all pie in general. after all, pi is but a number, pie is but a luxury desert, and pie is all of us.
thank you to all

 

[francis1988]

right you are francis. even though i have never ever met you before in my life at all, ever, i feel like i have and i totally understand your logic. i mean, along the same lines, is not an apple pie meant to be a round slop of pastry with sweetened, liquified apple chunks inside? but freedom is the availability to break the mould of conformity as macdonalds does and make the apple pie an eliptical piece of food all crumbly and such...
in the same way as muslims in australia are still australians, and still muslims, they are free! free to break the mould! free i say! free! just like apple pie...
so people, what we are saying is that if apple pie is not like all other pies, it cannot be discounted as pie, but it is also equally not to be dismissed as the archetype for all pie in general. after all, pi is but a number, pie is but a luxury desert, and pie is all of us.
thank you to all

ahh, romeot is it? i concur with you that i have never laid upon those magnificent baby browns of yours. i believe this could be the start of a beutifully mutual, open pantsed, relationship. but our sexual, err i mean mutual relaitonshoip is besides the point here.
wats the point is how ur thoery, dare i say one day a law, coincides with the chain of evolution. as the primitivity of the hash gradually builds up, one finds that its ability to consume such more noble concepts (such as that of the fine arts of dicing) is a compliment to its progression in the chain of evolution. wat does a mere piece of potato have anything to do with evolution you snogfaces dare say?!
well, all in all, one can plainly see the progression of the "hash" into a much more delicate, and somewhat delicious form that is very much suited for the fast food industry. can u not see the parallels to how many of the fauna adjust to such environemtental condiitons?! the greasy fingers, and the omnipotence of the obese male has been the catalyst for such a radical change.
the delicate rectangualr shapes not coping with such a landscape, its potato richness being the downfall of all that is holy in society.

note: by holy, i mean greasi-ness-ness

 

[romeot.]

ahh, romeot is it? i concur with you that i have never laid upon those magnificent baby browns of yours. i believe this could be the start of a beutifully mutual, open pantsed, relationship. but our sexual, err i mean mutual relaitonshoip is besides the point here.
wats the point is how ur thoery, dare i say one day a law, coincides with the chain of evolution. as the primitivity of the hash gradually builds up, one finds that its ability to consume such more noble concepts (such as that of the fine arts of dicing) is a compliment to its progression in the chain of evolution. wat does a mere piece of potato have anything to do with evolution you snogfaces dare say?!
well, all in all, one can plainly see the progression of the "hash" into a much more delicate, and somewhat delicious form that is very much suited for the fast food industry. can u not see the parallels to how many of the fauna adjust to such environemtental condiitons?! the greasy fingers, and the omnipotence of the obese male has been the catalyst for such a radical change.
the delicate rectangualr shapes not coping with such a landscape, its potato richness being the downfall of all that is holy in society.

note: by holy, i mean greasi-ness-ness

too right mr francis, handsome stranger. you seem to have a very firm, masculine, hard grasp of the food-political symbiosis that forms the basis of much of the foodist philosophy. say, are you from sydney's south west? however, i disagree with your point that the development of the hash brown is one that is evolutionary beneficial. would you say the hash brown is happy to first be yanked out of its earthen home as a potato and find itself mutilated at the hands of men? is the hashbrown not a commercialised butchery of the potato from its literal roots as a happy chappy sitting pretty and majestically in the ground, to be used and abused and changed by a totally different capitalistic, foreign and eurocentric culture?
but then again one could argue that the potato must necessarily undergo this baptism by fire in order to reach the "desirable" state of "hashbrown". whos to say that the hash does not enjoy and prefer life as a hash brown? maybe the fritter also feels the same? there is no way to know whether the assimilation of the potato into the world of hashbrowns and corporate watchdogs is a pleasant one but to ask the hashbrown itself, to increase the contact and relations one has with the hashbrowns, and not automatically classing all hashbrowns as, in some serendipity of fortune, lucky to be a preservative-packed, crumbly and preforated snack under the mould of all hash brown stereotypes, but each is their own hashbrown, with their own views on the world and preferences to their own original state as potato. one could also argue as you have that the commercialisation of the potato into the hashbrown has helped its propagation and through the cash cropping of potatoes, the potato species has thrived. but how can one call it a thrivance if the potato is no longer free to be a potato but forced to be a hash brown - again not assuming the hash brown is not an undesirable state - but isnt a potato meant to be a clump of poo-shaped bundle of starch?
answer me this francis - who i have never at all met in my life. EVER - is the thrivance of the hash brown ready to be counted as a thrivance of the potato?

 

[francis1988]

too right mr francis, handsome stranger. you seem to have a very firm, masculine, hard grasp of the food-political symbiosis that forms the basis of much of the foodist philosophy. say, are you from sydney's south west? however, i disagree with your point that the development of the hash brown is one that is evolutionary beneficial. would you say the hash brown is happy to first be yanked out of its earthen home as a potato and find itself mutilated at the hands of men? is the hashbrown not a commercialised butchery of the potato from its literal roots as a happy chappy sitting pretty and majestically in the ground, to be used and abused and changed by a totally different capitalistic, foreign and eurocentric culture?
but then again one could argue that the potato must necessarily undergo this baptism by fire in order to reach the "desirable" state of "hashbrown". whos to say that the hash does not enjoy and prefer life as a hash brown? maybe the fritter also feels the same? there is no way to know whether the assimilation of the potato into the world of hashbrowns and porporate watchdogs is a pleasant one but to ask the hashbrown itself, to increase the contact and relations one has with the hashbrowns, and not automatically classing all hashbrowns as, in some serendipity of fortune, lucky to be a preservative-packed, crumbly and preforated snack under the mould of all hash brown stereotypes, but each is their own hashbrown, with their own views on the world and preferences to their own original state as potato. one could also argue as you have that the commercialisation of the potato into the hashbrown has helped its propagation and through the cash cropping of potatoes, the potato species has thrived. but how can one call it a thrivance if the potato is no longer free to be a potato but forced to be a hash brown - again not assuming the hash brown is not an undesirable state - but isnt a potato meant to be a clump of poo-shaped bundle of starch?
answer me this francis - who i have never at all met in my life. EVER - is the thrivance of the hash brown ready to be counted as a thrivance of the potato?

answer you what, unfamiliar man whom i have never socially had contact with!?
does a glove not symbolise a "party" condom?! YES, yES, i shall answer you. truthfully, i cannot say. Yet if this were another time, another place, one might get the impression that i have been defeated in this endless struggle of the internal legned of the "hash" that burns in us all. But ALAS, i am merely toying with ur mental strength, such that u have bore witness to falling into such a high degree of passion about this cyclical topic that u have let your gaurd down, mr RomeoT, AND being the artful bird that i am, i have swooped upon such a chance to ambush you with this:
what say you of the french revolution!?

 

[romeot.]

answer you what, unfamiliar man whom i have never socially had contact with!?
does a glove not symbolise a "party" condom?! YES, yES, i shall answer you. truthfully, i cannot say. Yet if this were another time, another place, one might get the impression that i have been defeated in this endless struggle of the internal legned of the "hash" that burns in us all. But ALAS, i am merely toying with ur mental strength, such that u have bore witness to falling into such a high degree of passion about this cyclical topic that u have let your gaurd down, mr RomeoT, AND being the artful bird that i am, i have swooped upon such a chance to ambush you with this:
what say you of the french revolution!?

oh i disagree, talking to myself is not sad... btw im not talking to myself...
which leads me into my response to you, dear stranger francis.
the french revolution can is comparable to the harsh comment labelling you and i sad under the impression that we are one person. in the same way the french revolution was looked upon with disdain in that the peasant and working classes were seen as subservient to the nobility who ran the corrupt government and were ignored as separate entities. the poetry of the era is something studied in the hsc english module, in the wild - wordsworth and malouf, and has shed much light as to the naturality of the period's literature. the shear rurality of the pieces portray directly the idealisation of the simplicity of country life lived by the lower classes who mainly occupied coastal and mainland agricultural properties. they lived close to the land and were severely oppressed by heavy and unstreamed taxes given by the corrupt governments to keep the rich rich and make the poor poorer. thus the internal monologue, later to be a dialogue between the labouring classes of france and the nobility of the government was raised. this gained the attention of the brits who wanted to monopolise trade and something with the navy happened, etc. etc.
my point here is that in the french revolution, what appeared to be a useless cause of the peasant classes to gain equality turned out to be a valid, hope-giving endeavour that, with the advent of the napoleanic wars, indeed engendered a rising level of equity and overthrew the corrupt government in a fierce coup de tat.
so all i can say now is that it is relevant to hear out the causes of all as they may, though seemingly be irrelevant to the wellbeing of a nation, on closer inspection reveal a dichotomy of sociopolitical issues and become a catalyst for change.

 

[Analyst]

Muslim is an identity based on Religion just like Christian, Hindu, Agnostic, Jew and all the others in the business. "Australian" is a nationality.....just like....u know..... So a christian and a Jew and an Athiest can be Australian and never get branded, Why then should we treat a Muslim Aussie as an exception. I thought both could not be true but I came across so many Muslim Aussies who cleared it up to me. How ignorant are we if we look at a Muslim Aussie and question their identity...

 

[davin]

it creates insecurities among the iraqis ie creating fear. driving the iraqis to common cause to get rid of america. it simple to understnad but not the ideal way,.

so, what you're saying is....if not for the terrorists, iraqis would feel secure now, and so there wouldn't be issues with violence, or anger toward america?

 

[Salima]

Muslim is an identity based on Religion just like Christian, Hindu, Agnostic, Jew and all the others in the business. "Australian" is a nationality.....just like....u know..... So a christian and a Jew and an Athiest can be Australian and never get branded, Why then should we treat a Muslim Aussie as an exception. I thought both could not be true but I came across so many Muslim Aussies who cleared it up to me. How ignorant are we if we look at a Muslim Aussie and question their identity...

Thank you so much. This is so true. People keep talking about how australians here have reacted to foreigners. The only difference that they don't realise they keep hitting on is the fact that Al-Islam is a religion, while the others were nationalities....I say this becuase they keep talking about when the Irish came, then the greeks and italians, and then the asians. I know there woudl have been Jewish hate after the war. There is a little ignorance everywhere towards every kind of thing.

However, people keep refering to the asians (namely chinese it seems), the greeks, italians and irish on how aussies acted in the past. But by usingonly htese as examples it is impossible for people to notice that islam is not amongst these. Everytime chanel & mentions somethng about foreigners taking over htey show pictures of lakemba, and auburn and lots and lots of muslim women...and men of "middle-eastern appearance". But all these things go back to them being Muslim. Islam is a belief, not a nationality.; Like Analyst...good going. :wave:

So when we talk about muslims in australia think of this. And if the problem is that we go by other rules that Allah gave us, including hte AUssie ones...think of the other religions and philosphies people hold as well. They do the same. Remember ppl islam and muslims are just like you, they believe in something, and th emedia profilng and sensaiotnalism is jst all part of the rhetoric, and propaganda of today. So don't forget where the truth flies, and where the lies fall.

 

[HotShot]

so, what you're saying is....if not for the terrorists, iraqis would feel secure now, and so there wouldn't be issues with violence, or anger toward america?

wouldnt it be safer without terrorists? wouldnt there be less acts of violence?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Muslim is an identity based on Religion just like Christian, Hindu, Agnostic, Jew and all the others in the business. "Australian" is a nationality.....just like....u know..... So a christian and a Jew and an Athiest can be Australian and never get branded, Why then should we treat a Muslim Aussie as an exception. I thought both could not be true but I came across so many Muslim Aussies who cleared it up to me. How ignorant are we if we look at a Muslim Aussie and question their identity...

The fact that Islam is a belief and not a nationality opens it up to scrutiny more. People can't choose their race, people pretty much can't choose their nationality - but people can choose their religion. As for why do Muslims get branded and not other people, I would contend that all people get branded by their beliefs / demography and that the only reason muslims are branded more is because it's a 'hot button' issue at the moment.

Do you not think there is an issue with muslims in Australia, nay around the world, at the moment?

 

[davin]

wouldnt it be safer without terrorists? wouldnt there be less acts of violence?

of course, which is why i'm supportive of getting rid of them, and i do believe that many of them want power not just over the u.s. and forcing them out, but also they want power over other Iraqis

 

[Analyst]

The fact that Islam is a belief and not a nationality opens it up to scrutiny more. People can't choose their race, people pretty much can't choose their nationality - but people can choose their religion. As for why do Muslims get branded and not other people, I would contend that all people get branded by their beliefs / demography and that the only reason muslims are branded more is because it's a 'hot button' issue at the moment.

Do you not think there is an issue with muslims in Australia, nay around the world, at the moment?

But see "Not that Bright", this certainly is the issue at hand, why create the impression that the lady was just talking above, by showing Muslims and middle easterners when the issue of Immigrants to Australia arises on the media. Also just like you and I are free to choose whatever Religion/Theology we wanna believe in, why take the same right away by saying that people should not choose to be Muslims.... why? Freedom should be guaranteed to whoever is an Australian without religious categorization.

 

[Analyst]

the lady..... I meant Salima, with all due respect.

 

[davin]

the point he made with choice was that there is a difference from judging or questioning people based on what ideology they choose to adhere to and judging and questioning people based on things like ethnicity, which people CAN'T choose or change.

 

[Analyst]

but why judge at all, my dear davin!!! Would you like to be judged/misjudged by people around you? Just imagine there are thousands of Aussies that had ancestors who were convicts. Would we like to be judged over what they did wrong? Can we change it? The only way we can is by renouncing australian nationality. Would you like to do that?

 

[Captain Gh3y]

but why judge at all, my dear davin!!!

Because it's a belief over which they have full control, ie. that they choose to adhere to, which may cause them to want to perform certain actions that may be harmful to others.

Would you like to be judged/misjudged by people around you?

It happens to everyone, all the time, really.

Just imagine there are thousands of Aussies that had ancestors who were convicts. Would we like to be judged over what they did wrong? Can we change it? The only way we can is by renouncing australian nationality. Would you like to do that?

Those people are born with Australian nationality; if they 'renounce' it then clearly their ancestors are still convicts. Their ancestors' actions also occured more than two hundred years ago, and their actions (eg. stealing a loaf of bread) largely have no effect whatsoever on the world as it is now. How can you possibly compare religious fanaticism to having convict ancestry?

 

[HotShot]

of course, which is why i'm supportive of getting rid of them, and i do believe that many of them want power not just over the u.s. and forcing them out, but also they want power over other Iraqis

i think everyone is supportive of getting rid of terrorists, the dividing factors is america's involvement and their actions which seem to be worsening the situation around the world and in iraq.

there needs to be clear concise movement in iraq, lot yes and nos, its happening and its not happening etc. for eg, america sort of says there is no civil war. but it is quite eveident that there is. then american army blows up a mosque claiming to kill one terrorist amidst 100s of civilians - wtf? the iraqis are angered further. wtf is going on there, is probably so chaotic that the media by selecting few stories seem to miss others and givin wayward impressions to the public.

in the end america is at fault, they invaded the country, they threw saddam out, they claim to fix the problems and thus they claim full responsiblity over iraq which is why the iraqis are angry at them, because they are doing a dodgy job.

 

[davin]

but why judge at all, my dear davin!!! Would you like to be judged/misjudged by people around you? Just imagine there are thousands of Aussies that had ancestors who were convicts. Would we like to be judged over what they did wrong? Can we change it? The only way we can is by renouncing australian nationality. Would you like to do that?

you don't judge anyone ever? at all? thats an impossible claim to make and still be a sane person. to use an extreme example, do you judge someone as being wrong if they thing stealing is ok?
of course, blanket assumptions aren't always valid when talking about large groups, but judging someone based on their ideas is completely allowable. in fact YOU'RE judging me for my statement there. Why judge me at all? Shouldn't you just agree with anything i say, because by disagreeing you're judging one of my statements to be wrong?

ideologies are not sacred to the point that they can't be criticised. and its not limited to Islam. There's no such thing as a belief that can't be criticised.

 

[davin]

i think everyone is supportive of getting rid of terrorists, the dividing factors is america's involvement and their actions which seem to be worsening the situation around the world and in iraq.

there needs to be clear concise movement in iraq, lot yes and nos, its happening and its not happening etc. for eg, america sort of says there is no civil war. but it is quite eveident that there is. then american army blows up a mosque claiming to kill one terrorist amidst 100s of civilians - wtf? the iraqis are angered further. wtf is going on there, is probably so chaotic that the media by selecting few stories seem to miss others and givin wayward impressions to the public.

in the end america is at fault, they invaded the country, they threw saddam out, they claim to fix the problems and thus they claim full responsiblity over iraq which is why the iraqis are angry at them, because they are doing a dodgy job.

was your statement there america blew up a mosque killing hundreds of civilians or did i misunderstand what that amidst part was? either way, could you give some sort of link on that one?

and so then what is your solution, given that many of the terrorists want control of Iraq rather than the peopel of Iraq, not just that they want the U.S. out? How does one fix that?

 

[HotShot]

you don't judge anyone ever? at all? thats an impossible claim to make and still be a sane person. to use an extreme example, do you judge someone as being wrong if they thing stealing is ok?
of course, blanket assumptions aren't always valid when talking about large groups, but judging someone based on their ideas is completely allowable. in fact YOU'RE judging me for my statement there. Why judge me at all? Shouldn't you just agree with anything i say, because by disagreeing you're judging one of my statements to be wrong?

ideologies are not sacred to the point that they can't be criticised. and its not limited to Islam. There's no such thing as a belief that can't be criticised.

the only reason that islam is a 'hot button' is basically because of media hype surrounding it. for example what u read here in the smh is no the everything that goes on all around the world, just those that would interest you. such muslims who rape -its being selective. so its all media hype which typically any australian gets sucked into, or worse american believe depply into.

so u claim just because you can choose religion that its open judgement but not race? ur forgetting culture? culture t o some extente is also a belief and very closely tied to race -very close. If your from india u will tend to have belief regarding indians and have belief on how you portray the outside world.